Bombshell study: Temperature Adjustments Account
For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Government Climate Data
..........................................................................................................................................................................................
also here
---in which the author says---
A new peer-reviewed study claims that “nearly all” of the warming shown in current temperature datasets is the result of adjustments made after the temperatures were recorded.
The adjusted datasets, from NASA, NOAA and the Met Office in the United Kingdom, call into question just how much warming is real and how much is pure fantasy.
In the report, entitled “On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data and the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” authors James P. Wallace III, Joseph S. D’Aleo and Craig Idso examine the accuracy of Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data.
It urns out that GAST data is not simply the raw temperature recordings. Rather, the data is adjusted after it is recorded to account for various problems, such as “contamination by urbanization.”
Let that sink in for a minute.
the data is adjusted after it is recorded
which means they didn't really TAKE any readings..they just made it all up.
what are you saying governments lie , of course they do, about just about every thing , they will tell you black is white with a straight face , and act like your mad if you point out what is visibly obvious .
There is a gaping hole that needs to be addressed before I can take this seriously. Why didn't they publish the raw data vs the adjusted data. They claim it's skewed, that should be really easy to show. The authors have either obscured that data out of ignorance or malice. Second, this has not been peer reviewed, had it been obvious oversights like the one I just pointed out would have been cited.
yup...the raw data should be published as well as the information regarding where the data was recorded..
you must have missed the fact that the study WAS peer reviewed.
The term peer review refers to a formal process in the scientific community. That process was not followed here. Yes some people have publicly stated they agree with the findings, that's not a real peer review. The good thing here is scientists will continue to test this theory and we should get more data supporting or debunking the claims.